I'm not sure if this is helpful or not, but I thought I would add some personal experiences.

When I started University, I did a short course at the local TAFE, Hospitality, certificate 2. Took 10 weeks, 3 nights a week. Also covered tickets in Responsible Service of Alcohol (required to serve alcohol), Responsible Service of Gaming (due to many pubs and clubs offering gaming) and basic first aid.

While working part time at a bar, I was offered Cert 2 in Security operations (crowd control) as part of in-house training. An accredited instructor turned up and after 4 days training I had my certification and could then apply for a licence. The licence required a mandatory police background check, so 3 weeks after I had finished the training, I was still working as a bar attendant and glassie, with a slight pay increase because I was also recognised as a 'licenced crowd controller.' In my time working there, I had to hold open the door for the real bouncers twice.

Now I could claim that I was a licenced bouncer and spent a year and half working at a particular club. That is a lie, maybe a half truth.

Now I could claim that I was a licenced bouncer and spent a year and half working at a particular club. That is a lie, maybe a half truth.

This what we refer to as a semantics based argument.

What you just said is not a lie nor is it a half truth.
Were you licensed security? Yes.
Were you employed at a Bar/Club with this licensing for a year and a half? Yes.
Were you certified as crowd control? Yes.
In many cases does security=Bouncer? Yes

So:

Now I could claim that I was a licenced bouncer and spent a year and half working at a particular club.

We call it not volunteering information. Now, this is where we get into ethics and integrity. That is a debate for another time.Were you an actual bouncer? No.

I'm not sure if this is helpful or not, but I thought I would add some personal experiences.

Thanks, As Is It Fake correctly points out Holloway, as suggested by this thread, has played those word games and attempted to create a specific image for himself, I presume becuse he sees there's a potential financial advantage involved.

Resume padding, is it acceptable? Again word games to create a favourable impression is right up there in the ethics and integrity debate depending upon the severity of the padding. A good but simple example of this is the use of the term "operator".

If Holloway is a Security guard, that doesn't make him an "operator"
If Holloway is a Martial arts teacher, that doesn't make him an "operator"
If Holloway teaches tactical marksmanship, that doesn't make him an "operator"

If Holloway is trained and experienced in Civil Close Protection - that makes him an "operator"
If Holloway is trained and experienced in Military or Police Close Protection - that makes him and "operator"
If Holloway was active military (with experience of warfare) - That makes him and "operator"

See where I'm coming from ? You need actual hands on physical experience to consider yourself and "operator", and only then within particular occupational fields would one use that term anyway.

Holloway is a glorified Security Guard, all the additional bells and whistles he blows for himself are pretty incidental.

Has he ever provided armed protective services for anyone ? I doubt that, think about who typically works in that line of employment - Ex Soldiers, Police etc. Not some 20-Something guy with no verifiable military or law enforcement background.

Has he ever directly seen any form of warfare ? Nope, he's never been in the Armed Forces so, where's he drawing his tactical weapons skills from.. Courses, which he's paying $$ for. And prior to that? God only knows, what we do know is that Holloway has been video'd teaching both handgun and rifle "tactical skills" using Toy guns. And this is a guy who wants to take $300-$600 off your hands.

National Coaching and Officiating Accreditation Schemes (NCAS and NOAS) entry level training
programs aim to introduce teachers, parents, participants and volunteers to coaching and
officiating and is often the first step along the path to becoming a qualified coach or official.

This program is aimed at the new or first time coach, who has no previous coaching experience. In particular, it is aimed at coaches working with children. There are five modules in the course and it takes approximately 6-8 hours to complete. This course is available online (see related links at the bottom of the page for further information).

Accreditation with the National Coaching Accreditation Scheme is $50.00. You will receive a coaching accreditation card, coaching certificate and access to the Australian Sports Commission coaching materials

Last edited by Auszi; 10/12/2011 4:54am at .
Reason: More information.

Came across this video on youtube, only started to watch it as the opening picture is Jeff Munson vs Cops. Surprise! It's a Luke Holloway video. Got about 30 seconds in when he proves he doesn't know what he is talking about. He says he teaches Law enforcement, Military, etc, you know "what we call active shooters" I'm sure most LEOs would take great offense at being referred to as active shooters.
Only watched the first 30 seconds or so, don't need to see anymore.

You know, my eyes have never really stopped rolling where Luke Holloway is concerned.

I mean it's not like he's got some deadly secret to share, some techniques or knowledge which.. those of us actually IN THE MILITARY, haven't seen before or already know, or have direct access too without having to pay the top dollar fees he thinks that knowledge is worth.

The guy's a Walter Mitty. Most likely **** himself the first time someone "actively" shoots at him. He's nothing more than an academic at best, and then I'm being generous.

Too much talking to the camera, not enough showing of solid technique.

He's looking tubby, is that a newer vid? Maybe he's working on his Systema belly.

RockApe...seen many instructor types w/ the silly goatee, and underchops? *goes to shave own silly goatee*

No, because my government at least, wouldn't fucking dream of contracting someone to teach a professional soldier - fighting skills - who's never been to war themselves.

You know, we have this little known outfit call the UKSF who provide both the British Forces (depending upon who you are) with training and, they also write the firearms tactical policy for the Armed branch of the British Police. - That's how it's normally done.

Sure we have civilian specialists who work for the MOD, and provide their skills and knowledge because they are proven specialists not some Walt with an airsoft toy in his Blackhawk paddle holster.